cpmc has stated that the two sniffs are not in the e.i.r. draft because they are working to develop a transitional model for homecare based care after hospital discharge to bridge the gap between hospital discharge and home. while good, this still speaks only to those people going home. what about the growing elderly population and chronic sniff bed shortage in san francisco that is estimated to be 30% over the next decade? what will happen if these vulnerable people are sent home too early or have to go outside of san francisco for care? it is well known in our facility that cpmc wants to close our unit and has wanted to for some time. from a business perspective, we serve a patient population that is an income loser rather than a gainer. we would be closed now as documented in cpmc's prior plans and we have only remained open because community outrage that cpmc sutter would cut these services has caused cpmc to pause in their plans. i stand before you as a registered nurse with concerns over citywide healthcare for the elderly and disabled. thes

in the current draft e.i.r. does not adequately do so. president miguel: thank you. alan, kevin kitchingham, kevin vallen, diane smith. >> good evening. i'm the ceo of emerit goodman and associates. we own the building that will be the most impacted of this project, cathedral hill. the emerit goodman building, probably the oldest wood frame building of san francisco. survived earthquake and fire because it was on the west side of van ness. we renovated after eight years of development and construction in 1985, serving residences and businesses for the last 25 years. your staff presented you, which i saw for the first time today, an august 27th four-page executive summary. i didn't hear any reference to that. in the executive summary it mentions the significant unmitigated environmental impacts and those are the items which should have been dressed in the d.i.r. is, how those impacts which, from an economic sense are called external costs. external costs mean the simplest example is pollution where you'd have a polluting facility putting dust and pollution in people's

the comments should be confined to the adequacy and analysis contained in the draft e.i.r. i would like to suggest that you speak slowly and clearly so the court reporter should be able to make an accurate transcript. the court reporter is sitting at the back. after hearing comments from the general public, we will also receive comments on the draft e.i.r. from members of the planning commission. the public comment period began july 31st and extends to october 19, 2010, a potential commentator of this document has been raised concerned related to the proposed document. planning staff have responded to all, cop sift tent about the department's documents. this concludes my presentation unless the commissioner members have any questions, i request that you open the public hearing. president miguel: thank you. i will open the public hearing now. i have somewhere around 116 requests for comment cards already and there may be more that will come in. each speaker will be allowed three minutes. i have an additional request that out of courtesy to those people who are in the overflow

the project. have watched it closely grow. and my comments today really are solely directed towards the e.i.r., the draft e.i.r. nt of us. let me first say that i'm very appreciative of the broad range of commentsñt%zrmji. with me it resonates quite well it asks for an additional two weeks of public comments. the issues are quite complicated. i do think while the two projects are not quite comparable, the extent of issues which do rise to the surface require more time. in that direction. comments in writing. i have a number, but one thing i would like to put to public record today is the fact that the required?@ environmental security alternative is really not in this document. i'm surprised. the project is very strong and i think it should have dared to indeed address the environment. throughout the years of creating this project there has been a strong emphasis on green, on the truly green neighborhood of san francisco. the record shows during the scoping process, the documents pointed out the superior alternative would be one that would plan for enough defensity to support a robust public transit system, basi

not obviously, i would ask that be provided and the draft e.i.r. circulated. that's what i prefer to see. i think that's a glaring absence that needs to be included at some point, at least. also the -- as commissioner moore pointed out, there are no l.o.s. calculations from the tenderloin intersection even though most streets are one way streets including two and from vaness. there's a lot of the the outer material considered but some of the more interior ones aren't. i guess there was comments by many members of the comment of the saigon tenderloin study. the -- also i don't really -- i think that there are some conclusions that were a little -- were not -- to me there's not enough analysis provided. and the consistency with the commerce element to me is not very developed. it needs to be a little bit more robust. i know one of the speakers today spoke about the cultural groups and how some of those issues were raised in the commerce and industry element. i feel like it's very dismissive of a lot of issues. there's a small paragraph and some justification for

the -- get to that later today. with respect to the e.i.r., i would contend that she's wrong with respect to the e.i.r.'s discussion of sunlight on sidewalks. the draft e.i.r. discusses it and there's an extensive discussion of this exact issue in the comments and responses on pages 11, 18 and 59. what mrs. hoefter is complaining about is the fact that this city and the ceqa process considering -- considers parks, considers privately held open spaces,ers can recreational open spaces -- considers recreational open spaces, but ceqa is not about shadows on sidewalks. there's a special provision that deals directly with shadows on sidewalks. when we get to the entitlement proportion of -- portion of this a hearing and the exception that we're requesting, there will be plenty of discussion about that and there's plenty of material in the planning department file about the exception. but the exception's in the planninging code. there's no exception in the ceqa requirements. and mrs. hoefter hasn't pointed as to why there should be an analysis of shadows on sidewalks in the e.i.r. when it's down in the planning code. again, the e.i.r. talks extensively abou

please consider, we respect fully request a two-week extension on the public comment period for the draft e.i.rit's a very long and complicated document and we along with many other organizations who have interests in this development are not a staff driven organization. we don't have large staff the way that this city and the developers do. we rely on our volunteers. our volunteers have jobs. they have families. they have other commitments, travel commitments, and the short duration of this public comment period is inadequate for all of the issues that need to be addressed to be adequately addressed. we respectfully request a two-week extension on the public comment period. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> my name is holly berg. i also want to encourage the planning commission to extend the time for public comment. it's vital that the san francisco community have adequate time to address their concerns and ask questions of you about the project. looking back at the hunters point development project, it received two months' worth of public comment. i think it's important that